wb_align

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the most important behavioral trait: the operation is a dry run unless write=true, which is real safety context. It says nothing about what the dry run returns, whether alignment is reversible, how conflicting modes resolve, or what permissions/file access are needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety default; nothing is redundant. It is terse rather than padded, though that terseness borders on under-specification for a six-parameter mutation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action and the write-safety default but leaves the mode semantics and return behavior unexplained. An agent could invoke it correctly only by guessing how 'mode' affects the alignment result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only clarifies 'axis' (x/y/z) and 'write' (dry-run toggle). The most consequential parameter, 'mode' with six enum values (first/min/max/average/center/value), is never explained, nor is the relationship between mode='value' and the 'value' parameter, nor the meaning of 'paths' or 'file'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Align independent objects/groups') and names the axes x/y/z, so the agent can tell it apart from transform siblings like wb_move or wb_rotate. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closest siblings wb_distribute, wb_live_snap, or wb_live_select, which also reposition objects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Dry-run unless write=true' clause gives implicit invocation guidance and warns that the call is safe by default. There is no explicit statement of when to choose align over wb_distribute/wb_live_snap, and no preconditions such as requiring at least two paths or a valid file.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.